State+v.+Project+Principle,+Inc

D. Boeck **724 S.W.2d 387 (1987) **

STATE of Texas et al., Appellants, v. PROJECT PRINCIPLE, INC., Appellee.
No. C-5340. **Supreme Court of Texas. **  February 18, 1987. 388*388 Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen., Leslie L. McCollom and Kevin T. O'Hanlon, Assts., Atty. Gens. Office, Austin, for appellants. 389*389 Jaime Omar Garza, Alice, David Garza, C. Allen Ramirez, Rio Grande City, for appellee. CAMPBELL, Justice. Background: In 1984, Texas enacted legislation over a broad range of educational topics, one of which was teacher certification testing. The law required teachers to periodically be tested to certify that they were still able to meet the standards of practice that were required at the time of their initial certification as a teacher. The group Project Principle, which was comprised of teachers, administrators and others who opposed the law, sued claiming it was unconstitutional in nature. It made its rounds through the lower courts to finally reach the Texas Supreme Court for ultimate judgement. Decision and Rationale: The Texas Supreme Court ruled against the claims of Project Principle, which had argued that it was a fundamental right to be able to teach. This was found to be not the case as teachers must obtain that right through testing and obtainment of a bachelor’s degree. The court found that there were no violations that would keep the law from being enacted and issued a ruling that allowed its implementation. Implications : The testing of teachers who are already certified and employed as teachers is a reality that could be faced by all in the profession. It is a reasonable task that would indeed weed out those teachers who fail to keep themselves qualified to have the privilege of teaching the students that they are responsible to. We as teachers should support any measures which will give students the best resources and instruction that we could possibly provide for them and that includes periodical recertification of out teaching credentials/abilities. Question: Does the TECAT require a teacher to pass all areas tested to remain certified? Answer- Yes, it does. Failure of one content area means failure of the entire test.

Jessica Oliver

State of Texas vs. Project Principle, Inc Supreme Court of Texas February 18, 1987 Background: The Project Principle, a group comprised of public school teachers and administrators, sought to prohibit the Texas Education Code. This code was part of a law passed in the House requiring teachers to pass the TECAT. The purpose of the TECAT is to allow teachers to retain their certifications upon passing this exam. The bill passed also included pay raises for teachers and additional school funding, among other things. The Project Principal argued that the examination requirement was unconstitutional. Decision and Rationale: The Texas Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the initial trial court. The trial court had placed an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the Texas Education Code, which was a compilation of the above mentioned bill. The trail court stated that law passed in the House was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, however, dissolved the injunction and determined the Texas Education Code is constitutional. Impact on Teaching: This has been a topic of debate recently in many states. States are looking into certification exam for teachers to take to maintain their certifications and/or jobs. This may be a good practice to insure teachers are staying up to par on their content areas and their teaching ideas. Many states require teachers to take classes with a certain number of credit hours to maintain their certifications. In the end, taking a test would require a lot less time than taking a class. Quiz Question: T or F: Do teachers and administrators in Texas have to take a test called the TECAT to maintain their teaching certificates?

**724 S.W.2d 387 (1987)**
 * Michael Mooney**

STATE of Texas et al., Appellants, v. PROJECT PRINCIPLE, INC., Appellee.
<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">No. C-5340. **Supreme Court of Texas.** <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">February 18, 1987 <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">**Background:** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Project Principle, a non-profit corporation with membership comprised of certified public school teachers and administrators claimed that a law which was passed requiring teachers to take a test to keep certification was unconstitutional. They claim that Tex. Educ.Code § 13.047 goes against the legal contract they have with the state of Texas as far as being certified to teach in the state. The trial court sided with the plaintiffs and so the matter went to the Texas Supreme Court for final hearing <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';">**Decision and Rationale:** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> The decision was reversed by the Texas Supreme Court who argued that the teaching certificate the teachers held was not a contract but a license. The court cited //<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;">Marrs v. Matthews, //<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 10pt;"> 270 S.W. 586 which clearly defines the teaching certificate as a license and not a contract. Because the courts held that a teaching certificate is not a contract, the constitutional prohibition against impairment of contracts is not violated when the legislature imposes new conditions for the retention of the certificate. The Texas Supreme Court also said the claim of no due process for cancelling the certificate is not an argument either. There is specific language in the Texas Education Laws that give the teachers who do not do well on the test a chance to appeal and even take the test again. The court cited 19 Tex.Admin.Code § 157 and Tex.Educ. Code § 11.13 which specifically address those grievances. In the end there was no rational reason to claim the Texas Education laws were unconstitutional in nature and therefore the trail court decision is reversed and dissolved. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif';"> **Impact on Teaching:** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> The impact on teaching is that you should know your profession and really read through the laws that govern you. It seemed that the teachers did not really research their case and any precedents that it involved. I believe that is the real portion of this case that teachers should take notice of and pay attention. It is difficult to fault the rationale of the court when the truth was there in black and white the whole time. The laws were already in place and addressed most if not all the concerns of the teacher group. <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman','serif'; font-size: 12pt;">**Question:** Is a teaching certificate an official contract or just a license?